This is an important framework for locating where your current approach is and finding what works in it. The success stories of people negotiating the territory

This is an important framework for locating where your current approach is and finding what works in it. The success stories of people negotiating the territory without a map is pure survivor bias. I think some of the snark about ideas like these comes from how we all get so heavily invested in exploring territory that when someone asks if we've looked at a map lately, it's an affront to our lived experience, especially if we've been walking in circles for years. I've done the bottom-up organic approach of building things to scratch my own itches, and have been a PM for the sales-safari approach companies and have failed in some very predictable ways. The challenge of being someone who lives in the future and just building what's missing is that the rest of the world is literally designed around being future-proof. I think that altruism is the story we tell after. When I'm successful, I'm sure I too will be very grand. The top %5 of wealth I have seen get made had two criteria. 1. they made a big bet that someone else was wrong, and 2. they made an amount of money inversely proportional to the amount of actual work they did. If you are burned out from over work, how smart could you really be? I've come to suspect that suffering is nature's way of telling you that you are being stupid, and that it is usually better to be right than persistent. A product is just something someone else actually wants. The only question is whether you have a someone else that can want a thing. Enterprises and institutions are famously clusters of non-individuals who only not-want things, and "for everyone," almost always reduces to "no one." I don't know that there is product idea advice to give other than it is probably best to have more acquaintances than ideas, and of the problems to solve, that seems like the smartest one to solve for.